up to now SpaceX's Falcons are as uncertain as QuickReach at least - Falcon 1 has been destroyed at its maiden launch already by a simple fuel leak.

The news available about QuickReach are psoitive and report progress. The next milestone is approaching and will occur this year.

The news about the vehicles of the other four finalists as far as I persoanlly know the news don't say that much about vehicles.

And t/Space's approach consists of an airpalne as first stage. Ass is more than well known airplanes are extremly reliable. So once QuickReach had a first successfull airlaunch two stages are ready and only the CXV needs to be completed.

In so far t/Space might be ahead of SpaceX who still have to have a successfull flight of a Falcon 9 or a Falcon 5 but still haven't had a successfull launch of the smaller Falcon 1.

So they are all uncertain to nearly the same degree - they are all in the developments phase. This is one reason why I can't accept the "haven't seen it fly yet" as an argument that a particular vehicle shouldn't be funded, invested in and so on. There are aspects and subjects I accept it as an argument - but not regarding investments into the development. Its a competition at a kind of market - and this required investments into several companies or their vehciles.

The single investor to a certain degree is justified to consider QuickReach to be ahaed and to consider t/Space to be ahead.

Thinking about and reading of the news to closer details all the tests by Air Launch LCC and DARPA and of the QuickReach are looking reasonable detailed to me - they provide good transparency of their tests to themselves.

- the drop equipment and method is tested separately
- the stage separation is tested on ground
- the test firings are done on ground

This they get insight into it all separately and do what is called a module-test at my job in a commercial IT-department. Later they will do what is called an integration-test at my job when they drop the QuickReach and ignite its engine(s).

It seems a little bit as if the chances of or for QuickReach are growing because of a success for Air Launch LLC reported yesterday - which may be a progress for t/Space also since Air Launch is part of t/Space:

Quote:

AIRLAUNCH LLC TO PARTNER WITH NASA ON SMALL SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT

Kirkland, Washington (July 26, 2006) â€“ AirLaunch LLC announced today that it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., to explore collaborations in space launch systems and payloads launched from aircraft. ...

[quote]Under terms of the agreement, AirLaunch LLC and NASA Ames will explore areas of collaboration to include mission, vehicle, and payload concept analyses; systems engineering; and payload integration, as well as use of NASA Ames facilities, such wind tunnels, arc-jet facility, flight simulators, hangars, and runways.

â€œWeâ€™re excited to partner with NASA Ames and leverage its long history of working with innovative companies and technologies to develop a robust commercial small payload market,â€

I would suspect that SS3 will be the CXV plus QuickReach2 booster or a very close derivative of it. Maybe a winged or lifting body re-entry vehicle. Scaled & Airlaunch have alway been a part of T/Space.

The article says that this has expanded the envelope to simulate the actual weight that QuickReach is going to be and that the drop altitude of 32,000 feet is the correct operational height. I wonder when we will see an actual launch with a real rocket now they have this part of the lauch system worked out?

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Looking into one of the articles again and thinking a bit about it it seems to me that NASA Ames gets a closer look at Air Launch's concept than into other concepts and their interest is significant measured by the number of fileds of collaboration.

NASA Ames might be recommending t/Space for COTS because of this and because of Air Launch's partnership in t/Space.

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

EDIT:

By the way, WannabeSpaceCadet, what about the possibility of SS3 being derived from SS2? It could carry four to six persons instead of seven passengers and a pilot, be more narrow since it would be a taxi only and be adjusted to the QuickReach 2 or even a QuickReach 2B.

...By the way, WannabeSpaceCadet, what about the possibility of SS3 being derived from SS2? It could carry four to six persons instead of seven passengers and a pilot, be more narrow since it would be a taxi only and be adjusted to the QuickReach 2 or even a QuickReach 2B.

SS2, like SS1, has a Nitrous tank and HTPB hybrid rocket engine that make up more than half of the launch weight. Those wouldn't be needed on a QuickReach 2, since it has its own engines & fuel sufficient to reach orbit. A small circulization/de-orbit motor & a Reaction Control System (RCS) is all that's needed by SS3.

Also, the 'care-free' reentry system on SS1, and presumably SS2, uses wing feathering. This is ok for sub-orbital reentry at about 1200 m/s. At 7500 m/s orbital reentry, the energy to be dissipated is 40 times greater (E = 1/2 * mv^2). The wings and the fuselage would melt if not covered in silica tiles or reinforced carbon-carbon, like the shuttle. This may be aerodynamically impossible, and is at least, very, very difficult & very, very expensive.

CXV has a simpler form of 'care-free' reentry. It uses a 'bucket' shape that is self-righting, a double layer of tiles in a simple pattern, and parachutes. All the engines, antennae & hatches are at the back where there are no tiles, but they are not exposed to the hot reentry gasses.

By "derived" I was speaking about the way of development in the sense that Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic or The Spaceship Company could use SS2 as the starting point and then modify it including the removal of the wings and the engine etc.

You on the other hand seem to be speaking about technical, technological and physical similarities of the vehicles - like the existence of wings, tiles etc. You have in mind the properties.

"derived" as process and "derived" as property...

So there is no problem at present to agree to what you say.

But just this moment I remember a point speaking against the probability that they are going the way of derivations. On the paper the development of the CXV has been started already before the design of SS2 was finished or even partially finished - SS2 and CXV are under development in parallel merely. May be SS3 will be derived from both of them or even developed completely independently from them - since the design of CXV depends on constraints set by the t/Space-partners of Scaled Composites that don't exist and might be not wnated by Scaled, Virgin or The Spaceship Company.

Nonetheless - regardless of CXV or SS3 Air Launch LLC will take the part of SpaceDev as booster/engine-supplier. And this part/role is strengthened by their partnership with NASA.

I checked a number catching my eye when I worked on the most recent post of the CXV-thread in the Financial Barriers section - and found that the QuickReach since long seems to be ready to carry he CXV regarding a particular aspect - it has the same diameter as the CXV, 2.10 m.

So they are closer to the possibility to launch a CXV by the QuickReach than I recognized up to now - they simply need to increase its length.